## Facts

- Gary E. Peel, an attorney licensed in Illinois and other states, obtained a “Certificate in Civil Trial Advocacy” from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA), a private certifying organization.
- Peel used letterhead stating: “Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy.”
- Illinois disciplinary authorities charged Peel with violating Illinois Rule 2-105(a)(3), which generally prohibited lawyers from holding themselves out as “certified” or a “specialist.”
- The Illinois disciplinary hearing board found a violation and recommended public censure.
- The Illinois Supreme Court censured Peel, reasoning the letterhead was potentially misleading because it could imply state sponsorship or superior quality.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may categorically prohibit an attorney from truthfully stating on letterhead that he is certified by a private organization, on the ground that the statement is potentially misleading.
2. Whether, under the First Amendment protections for commercial speech, a state must use narrower means (such as disclaimers) rather than an outright ban to address possible consumer confusion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- A plurality held that Peel’s statement of NBTA certification was truthful, verifiable commercial speech and was not actually or inherently misleading on this record.
- Even if the statement were potentially misleading, Illinois’s categorical prohibition was broader than reasonably necessary; less restrictive measures were available.
- A concurring Justice agreed the speech could potentially mislead some consumers but concluded a complete ban was unconstitutional.
- Dissenting Justices would have deferred more to Illinois’s judgment that the certification claim could mislead the public and could be prohibited.

## Legal Principles

- Truthful, verifiable attorney advertising about lawful services is protected commercial speech.
- A state may prohibit advertising that is actually misleading, but it may not impose an absolute ban on information that is only potentially misleading when the information can be presented in a nondeceptive manner.
- Where the state’s concern is possible confusion, disclosure-based remedies (such as disclaimers or clarifying information) are generally favored over suppression.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Illinois violated the First Amendment by categorically banning an attorney from truthfully advertising a private specialty certification; the state must address any risk of deception through narrower regulation rather than a blanket prohibition.


Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Ill., 496 U.S. 91 (1990)